• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ben Stokes catch against South Africa

Mitzy

Cricket Spectator
I wonder if anyone can settle an argument between myself and a friend about a fair catch. If Ben Stokes had taken the Ball in the air ,as happened, and upon landing had the ball face down in contact with the ground but still holding the ball would this constitute a fair catch?
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
The relevant laws of cricket are as follows:

Law 32 - 1 : Out Caught

"The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler [...] touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground."

The above law states that the ball must be held as a fair catch before it touches the ground.

The next relevant section is:

Law 32 - 3 : A fair catch

"The act of making the catch shall start from the time when the ball in flight comes into contact with some part of a fielder’s person other than a protective helmet, and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement."

and:

"A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if [...] the ball does not touch the ground even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch."

To summarise, the ball must be under complete control of the fielder before it touches the ground for it to be a fair catch.

In your question scenario, the ball is in the hand but touching the ground at the same time. In this situation, the umpire would need to decide if Stokes was still in complete control of the ball when it touched the ground.

If Stokes had complete control of the ball before and until the ball touched the ground, the batsman is out.
If Stokes did not have complete control when the ball touched the ground, it would be not out.
 
Last edited:

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You quoted the law and yet completely missed the part about ‘and his own movement’
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
So the question is about whether you're 'in complete control of your own movement' while in mid air. That's clearly a no so it'd be not out.
 

cnerd123

likes this
There is no hard and fast rule on how you interpret the laws. Common sense always applies, and the umpires will make their call based on their judgement.

There will be instances where a catch is taken in the air and the ball touches the ground as the fielder lands, but it will be deemed a fair catch, and others where it won't. How long was the ball in contact with the surface, how did the fielder react, how long did he hold the ball before it touched the ground, how was he moving. Lots of other intangible factors too.

The real rule of thumb is - if there is doubt, it's probably not out.
 
Last edited:

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The Shami (or was it Yadav) case was very interesting. He caught it cleanly, but when he went to throw it up in celebration he dropped it. Umpires rightly imo deemed it out using common sense.
 

Kirkut

International Regular
That Stokes catch was carbon copy of Tendulkar dismissal at Cape Town 1996. He tried to hook Donald for six and Bacher takes the catch.
 

greg

International Debutant
The Shami (or was it Yadav) case was very interesting. He caught it cleanly, but when he went to throw it up in celebration he dropped it. Umpires rightly imo deemed it out using common sense.
Sounds like Waugh/Gibbs with the opposite outcome?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The Gibbs one has always seemed odd to me. He clearly was in complete control of the catch... until he wasn't. The process of completing the catch had actually been completed successfully.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The Gibbs one has always seemed odd to me. He clearly was in complete control of the catch... until he wasn't. The process of completing the catch had actually been completed successfully.
Under the laws he needed control until the further disposal of the ball. He wasn't in control of that, which is why under the laws it was clearly a dropped catch.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
If Gibbs had successfully tossed it in the air as intended it would probably have been out even though it left his hand in the same time frame.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He meant to throw it up, it went down. Therefore not in control of the disposal, therefore not out
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Under the laws he needed control until the further disposal of the ball. He wasn't in control of that, which is why under the laws it was clearly a dropped catch.
You can also tell from the look on his face that he absolutely didn't have control of it and had ****ed it up.
 

Top